those crazy stalinist fucks

[weemadando]

The main problem is that China won't stand by if the US goes in, because it doesn't want US forces right on its border.

Let it be regional conflict, lend support, but for god-sakes don't mobiise more forces to deploy.

[Sea Skimmer]

A problem which would not arise if China and/or Russia attacked while South Korea and the USA stayed neutral.

The North would still do it out of spite and they have enough missiles to hit Japan, South Korea, Russia and China in considerable strength all at once. The lat thing any nation should do is attack the North. They are on the verge of collapse and testing a nuke shows how desperate they are, it's the last card they can play to try and get economic and political concessions to avoid disintegration.

The is a time to let them fall apart on there own. Not needlessly start a war.

[Col. Crackpot]

The main problem is that China won't stand by if the US goes in, because it doesn't want US forces right on its border.

Let it be regional conflict, lend support, but for god-sakes don't mobiise more forces to deploy.

the problem is , if the 50,000 or so US troops on the border of the DMZ get hit by half a million Northern troops or ,worst case, a small nuke we would have to respond. The US public would be on the streets demanding bloody vengance like they did for the comparatively small 3000 people in 2001. and so would you, being bound by the ANZUS Treaty. NATO would get sucked in as well.

[Sea Skimmer]

the problem is , if the 50,000 or so US troops on the border of the DMZ get hit by half a million Northern troops or ,worst case, a small nuke we would have to respond. The US public would be on the streets demanding bloody vengance like they did for the comparatively small 3000 people in 2001. and so would you, being bound by the ANZUS Treaty. NATO would get sucked in as well.

No actually NATO would not be involved in any way shape or form. The NATO treaty only applies to conflicts in Europe and in the Atlantic north of the tropic of cancer.

[Col. Crackpot]

No actually NATO would not be involved in any way shape or form. The NATO treaty only applies to conflicts in Europe and in the Atlantic north of the tropic of cancer.

i knew that......brainfart.

[Zac Naloen]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 190287.stm

The story from a slightly different perspective


Korea have said they will back down IF the US changes its hostile attitude... can anyone see this happening?

[Col. Crackpot]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 190287.stm

The story from a slightly different perspective


Korea have said they will back down IF the US changes its hostile attitude... can anyone see this happening?

yeah. our hostile attitude. riiiiiight. so now telling a violent repressive country not to sell missiles and nuclear warheads to terrorists is considered being hostile? Fuck, we gave them a nuclear reactor in 1993 in exchange for them to stay out of the nuke business. This is about extortion plan and simple. Extortion being committed by a man who should be committed....to a mental hospital.

[Zac Naloen]

im just saying that that is what they said, not getting involved in the argument... from their perspective they probably see the patrolling of their borders as a sign of hostility, personally i think they are trying to put the blame, if they do test, on the states.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Typical Big Lie statist.
According to the North, the South started the war.
Are we supposed to talk to these folk?(I know what's REALY going on here!)
In the typical backasswards communist logic, preventing the inevitable spread of true communism is in and of itself, an attack on communism.It is called "Counter revolutionary action." Not giving up, and exsisting is an attack!
Very much the same way the fact we exsist is an insult and a threat to the Islamofacists.

Ignore them, stall them, and don't give an inch.
What they say matters not, what they do does.
There is NOTHING you can do to make a crazy person behave. All we CAN do is stand fast, and hope for minimum colateral dammage as NK implodes. There will come a time when waiting is more dangerous than cting, and I hope the man in charge at the time has the balls to slag NK, and maybe Iran's reactor as well.
With the new stated policy, that ANY dirty bomb, or nuke goes off, ANYWHERE, without a government to take responsability, EVERY likely culprits countrys will be slagged.
Libya, NK, Iran, Somalia, Syrria, Lebanon, and maybe Sudan, are only the start.
Maybe Saudi Arabia too. Evac the foriegners, nuke the cities.

[CJvR]

I doubt this mess will escalate to an outright war, the South won't fire first and without outside aggression the North will be completely isolated in a conflict.

The North's military might look impressive but in reality it is a scutteling charge set in the magazines, it might prevent them from being boarded but it's usefulness will end the moment they use it. The moment the NK starts shooting there will not be any reson not to thrash them completely.

Little Kim, the only fat North Korean in existence, is having nightmares about being second on Bush's hit list and he wan't assurances that he will be allowed to continue in his career as dictator for life. (Natural life that is, not the tomahawk missile shortened version Bush have planned for him) Kim is not nuts enough not to realize that no matter what happens once the war breaks out he will not be there when it ends.

[CelesKnight]

the problem is , if the 50,000 or so US troops on the border of the DMZ get hit by half a million Northern troops or ,worst case, a small nuke we would have to respond. The US public would be on the streets demanding bloody vengance like they did for the comparatively small 3000 people in 2001. and so would you, being bound by the ANZUS Treaty. NATO would get sucked in as well.

No actually NATO would not be involved in any way shape or form. The NATO treaty only applies to conflicts in Europe and in the Atlantic north of the tropic of cancer.

Why was NATO involved in Afganistan then? Or wasn't it.

I think that Guy's point stands though, even if NATO itself isn't involved, the Brits probably would be. If NK nukes someone, I beat that even the French and Germans would want to participate in some way.


Moving on...

Let's see, we shouldn't ignore NK. And we can't play the normal airwar game because of NK's artillery. We couldn't do a quick carpet nuke because of the radiation (along with it's not a particularily decent or political savvy thing to do). I suppose we could keep talking and hope that something changes, such as a meteor hitting the Earth ending all our problems, but let's ignore that for now. So, what can we do? At the moment, I can only think of two things. We could try assasination. Make it look like an accident.

Or we (meaning the US, China, Russia, etc) could mutually agree to cut off NK from the rest of the world. No oil, food, or anything else from us. And we discourage others from trading with them. "You either trade with only us or you trade with only NK." I don't -think- that this is technically an act of war. NK can't be self-sufficent, so it's only a matter of time before the miltary and upper class starts feeling the pinch.

The downside, of course, is that China and SK will have massive refugee problems, and we'll be indirectly responsible for thousands or even millions of death. And Kim may attack SK anyway.

Any comments or other ideas?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The main problem is that China won't stand by if the US goes in, because it doesn't want US forces right on its border.

Let it be regional conflict, lend support, but for god-sakes don't mobiise more forces to deploy.

I disagree. I think the Chinese will do more than approve--they'll send their own troops to aide us, should such a war come. That will, of course, create an entirely different set of problems, however...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 190287.stm

The story from a slightly different perspective


Korea have said they will back down IF the US changes its hostile attitude... can anyone see this happening?

*points a gun at you*

If you stop being so irrational and give me all of your money, I suppose I can take the extreme risk of lowering weapon out of a desire for peace! Otherwise I must shoot out of self-defence!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

My main concern, really, is that Kim Jong-il will someday be faced with the fact that his economy is unsustainable. At that point he will either have to get resources elsewhere (use it) or die (lose it). He'll have nothing to lose from risking a first-use of nuclear weapons in such a situation--why would an atomic fireball be worse than being overthrown in a revolt of his own people? And we might be intimidated into not shooting... Or so he could hope.

So my definite fear is that the DPRK's economy will finally snap. But at that moment, instead of a peaceful collapse that those of the USSR and the eastern block, we're going to see the army go south under the cover of nuclear mines blowing routes of advance into the DMZ and gas shells hitting Seoul.

The question is if the army will obey the order to do that. And, again, my fear is that--considering they are the well-fed and most heavily indoctrinated part of a society which does everything possible to emulate 1984--that they will. And then we'll get to see what a regional atomic war looks like.

[Sea Skimmer]

So my definite fear is that the DPRK's economy will finally snap. But at that moment, instead of a peaceful collapse that those of the USSR and the eastern block, we're going to see the army go south under the cover of nuclear mines blowing routes of advance into the DMZ and gas shells hitting Seoul.

That's a risk, but its more likely they'll will be a period of violence more like that of Romania and then a total collapse. The South will then send everyone it can spare north to seize control.

The question is if the army will obey the order to do that. And, again, my fear is that--considering they are the well-fed and most heavily indoctrinated part of a society which does everything possible to emulate 1984--that they will. And then we'll get to see what a regional atomic war looks like.

Anyway even with tactical nuclear bombs to support them, there not going to travel very far. A few B-61's will place some 300 kiloton corks in the resulting hole in the defenses and its then a half million will equipped southern troops with two million more in reserve against a few hundred thousand Northern troops with 60's equipment backed up by a few hundred thousand ore who are starving with there 50's tanks.

[Col. Crackpot]

Why was NATO involved in Afganistan then? Or wasn't it.

NATO was involved. Article IV of the NATO charter (the mutual defense pact) was activated on Sept. 12th 2001. My feeling is the members stood by the spirit of the charter if not the letter, Just as the US would do if, say, the Italian carrier Garabaldi was attacked by Peruvians in the Coral Sea.

[Vympel]

What would the Garibaldi be doing in the Coral Sea? And why would Peruvians be there? In what ships? Their fishing fleet?

Anyways, just let the place fall to pieces. They can't win, they can only lose. No point in spending obscene amounts of blood and treasure on such a podunk shithole for no gain.

[Gil Hamilton]

You underestimate the might and majesty of the Peruvian fishing fleet, which is capable of holding enough men on it's decks to create withering small arms fire. Bullets would fall like rain in a hurricane. All smothering.

[Col. Crackpot]

What would the Garibaldi be doing in the Coral Sea? And why would Peruvians be there? In what ships? Their fishing fleet?

*thwap!* it's a hypothetical situation. and a rather entertaining one at that!

[Straha]

This is why you don't brain-wash your diplomats like you brain wash your people.

[Stravo]

So my definite fear is that the DPRK's economy will finally snap. But at that moment, instead of a peaceful collapse that those of the USSR and the eastern block, we're going to see the army go south under the cover of nuclear mines blowing routes of advance into the DMZ and gas shells hitting Seoul.

[That's a risk, but its more likely they'll will be a period of violence more like that of Romania and then a total collapse. The South will then send everyone it can spare north to seize control.

What about China sending troops south to secure or prop up the North, perhaps setting up a puppet state?

[Newtonian Fury]

What about China sending troops south to secure or prop up the North, perhaps setting up a puppet state?

It will be a puppet state friendly to the South, a major trade partner to China. The goal of the puppet state will be eventual Korea unification under Seoul, which ends in the removal of the US presence.

China likes South Korea. A lot. PRC might help the North only if foreign powers are interfering with the Penisula. One can be sure that the PLA would go south of the Yalu if North does anything to South.

[Vympel]

I was not aware that China had any love for South Korea ...

[Newtonian Fury]

S Korea is liked because of trade. There's money to be made with the South while the North only "exports" refugees and crime. Sino-DPRK relations went downhill ever since China normalized relationship with S Korea. And the money that's been flowing between the two countries has reduced North as more of a liability than an asset due to its frequent threats to the South.

[RedImperator]

Pyongyang is nothing but an albatross for the Chinese. They'd be just as happy to see Kim go as the rest of the world, not least becase about 20 minutes after that happens, the South Korea is going to give the US army its deportation papers.